BOBBY LACY: Martin case, voting-rights threat reflect shame on U.S.

Several years ago a very knowledgeable friend told me that "our" right to vote has to be periodically renewed after present circumstances are reviewed. As intelligent as I sometimes think I am, I just nodded and went on to the next topic with him.

Surely we do not have to worry still about that aspect of life. Or so I thought.

Suddenly and surprisingly, parts of the Voting Rights Act were struck down. "Our" right to vote, as black people and others, which we thought was a given, is no longer available, at least not to all of us.

Yes, we are talking about the right to vote that, after years of struggling, we thought we had secured forever. Now only some have that right, and only if we are properly identified, as determined by them.

And I really can blame no one for that except, of course, Clarence Thomas, "our" Supreme Court justice. Or so we once claimed. For Thomas to reject the Voting Rights Act, in its entirety, is comparable to selling his birthright.

He has forgotten who and, more importantly, what he is — a still-black man whose parents struggled for that very right to vote, because they previously could not.

That seems ludicrous to me, but such has been the case with "our" Justice Thomas in so many aspects before. We have grown to expect that in most instances, but, I thought, surely not in this case.

Speaking of expecting things, the George Zimmerman "murder" case comes to mind — a not-guilty verdict. Wow! And immediately after the controversial verdict, one of his lawyers said that the prosecution itself was a farce. He never should have been charged, we were told matter-of-factly.

How arrogant of them. Just think, an unarmed young black boy was shot dead, and for us to hope that someone should be held accountable is an obvious farce?

The truth is the verdict was not overwhelmingly surprising. Many of us could see it coming. What was surprising was the anxiety that the white community supposedly had concerning the sure-to-come actions of the black community.

According to media outlets, blacks everywhere, pre-emptively, were being warned not to riot and act out in response to the verdict. Why? Was there a legitimate reason to automatically expect that, or did they know it was coming?

But then, after all, this was a case of a young black man's death having been caused by a white man — actually, a Hispanic man whose last name seemingly inspired many unknowing whites to immediately stand up for his cause.

Because of what was initially thought, surely he, the presumed white man, could be found at the scene of the killing and not even be arrested. To them that was OK.

What? That was the original problem many concerned blacks had. A black youth was dead when the police arrived and the perpetrator was right there. Yet no arrest was made, if for no other reason than to find out what happened. It took months, after protests and demonstrations, for even that to be rectified.

And to those who try to tell us that black-on-black crime is more prevalent, especially in Chicago (President Barack Obama's residence), with no convictions in many cases, I might agree that is the case statistically.

But in most black communities, or urban areas, the search for and pursuit of justice is so much different from elsewhere. Police and the establishment seem to think that unchecked crime is OK in those areas.

Actually, even that is just a matter that only comes forth statistically, because very few blacks anywhere commit crimes and go unpunished. In fact, many are unjustly and unjustifiably punished, but that goes unsaid.

However, when there is even a whisper that a black man, or boy, might have been involved in any crime anywhere except in such an area, one can bet that he does not get the kind of forgiving consideration that Zimmerman received.